"Why do you need 30 round magazines?"...

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Paincakesx

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
128
I've read the thread on how not to sound like an insensitive moron when debating about magazine capacity limits, but my brother and I got into a bit of a debate on this.

His claim was that people don't need them for self defense and they only cause more harm than good. I tried to point out that the 1994 AWB as well as a majority of shootings (including Columbine and Va Tech) were not committed with weapons with high capacity magazines.

He's not anti-gun per se, and doesn't believe in the confiscation of firearms. He does, however, believe that standard capacity magazines should be banned. There are probably threads on this and I apologize if I missed any, but any advice on what can be said here?
 
I don't even know why it's an issue. There are 60 rd mags out there and at the last gun show I went to I saw a double drum for an AR. There are also mechanisms to attach two mags side by side. You could always tape them together and just flip them end for end ...old school.
 
I understand that his argument doesn't make much sense to those of us who are pro-gun. Given all the anti-gun hysteria going on, I'd like to earn my own kin as an ally to this movement :)

He got pretty heated, whereas I was calm as a cucumber. Could be a sign that he knows his argument doesn't ring true and is just too stubborn to accept it. Or maybe I'm over reading it...
 
Paincakesx said:
He's not anti-gun per se, and doesn't believe in the confiscation of firearms. He does, however, believe that standard capacity magazines should be banned. There are probably threads on this and I apologize if I missed any, but any advice on what can be said here?
Click to expand...

Why do we need sports cars?
they guzzle gas and some people want to race them which in turn kills innocent people

Why do we need golf courses?
They take up land which could be used by wildlife, or for better housing.

Why do we need alcohol?
Too many people die each year from alcohol related matters.

Why don't we have cell phones which shut off when people are in the car?
Too many texting related accidents.


Where do the assaults on our freedoms stop?
 
It's all about freedom from Government intervention. It means you can eat a double whopper with cheese instead of a tofu burger. A 4 wheel drive truck with a 6" lift instead of a Smart Car. Going to New York City and finding a bootleg Thirstbuster 64 ounce soda instead of a 12 oz drink.

We don't complain that a 1911 only has a 7 round magazine because it was meant to be that way. The same with a 30rd Magaine for an AR.

You "need "and it because your are a free man with all the glorious gluttony that comes with being free. Pass me another mag brother!
 
I actually used the sports car analogy and the alcohol analogy. Considering he loves cars and enjoys alcohol socially, I was shocked when he said he was fine with banning those (after trying to claim it was irrelevant).

This actually surprised me given he's generally been more libertarian in the past.

Apparently the fact that the 1994 AWB did nothing to curb violent crime isn't relevant.

Perhaps he's a lost cause. :-/
 
He touts himself as a libertarian, I'm starting to doubt that.
Click to expand...
Just starting? Banning things because they're not practical or not needed is about as anti-Libertarian and statist as it gets. I don't need to, but if I wanted to, I could buy two sports cars and keep them idling on my grass until the cars run out of gas and it kills the grass.
 
Paincakesx said:
I actually used the sports car analogy and the alcohol analogy. Considering he loves cars and enjoys alcohol socially, I was shocked when he said he was fine with banning those (after trying to claim it was irrelevant).

He touts himself as a libertarian, I'm starting to doubt that.

Politics aside,this may be an un-winnable case with him. To many this is an emotional issue rather than a factual one - this seems to be the problem.
Click to expand...
You might be a failboy.. no slight intended. There is such a thing as an "inelastic" demand product/good.
 
Cesiumsponge said:
Just starting? Banning things because they're not practical or not needed is about as anti-Libertarian and statist as it gets. I don't need to, but if I wanted to, I could buy two sports cars and keep them idling on my grass until the cars run out of gas and it kills the grass.
Click to expand...

Indeed...Libertarians want LESS government interference.

Look at Demolition man...it is basically a Libertarian protest...
 
This is America. It's not about what we need.

You don't need freedom of speech.
You don't need freedom of religion.
You don't need protection from unreasonable search & seizure.
You don't need a trial by our peers.
You don't need any of the liberties & freedoms guaranteed to us by our creator.
All you need is a place to sleep and two meals a day. You don't need freedom to survive. There are plenty of prisoners in the world who get by every day without them
 
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
This is an article written by a well known THR member. It is a very informative read, however if you are looking for the spot about magazine capacity restriction, page down 9 times, near the bottom is a paragraph that starts like:
We should ban magazines over X number of shots!
Click to expand...
The entire article is worth reading, and gave me insightful ideas about discussion with fence sitters and antis.
 
It is always the intellectually lazy who opt for the easiest "solution", which is to simply "ban" something....guns, alcohol, sports cars, high capacity mags, the list could be endless. Fact is, human beings want all of these things. When my wife used to ask, "do you need another gun", I used to try to explain why I wanted it, but now I just say "Of course not, but I really want it." We want all these things and society has to figure out ways to live with and manage that reality.
 
We hunt pigs or used to around here. A typical load-out was one or two 10 round mags and two 30 rounders. Easy to carry; does not need a bunch of special clothing to carry and is much quieter than a box of rocks or bullets. Convenience and ease of use..

Many people who lack an understanding of something simply because they have never walked in the end user's shoes.
 
"Why do you need it" is the wrong question. When you are talking about a constitutional right the burden is on those who wish to infringe to prove that the infringement they are seeking is necessary and also the least invasive way of achieving their goal.

The gun grabbers may be able to show that gun control reduces gun crimes but they cannot show that it has ever reduced overall violent crime, murder rates or overall mortality rates.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
 
nazshooter said:
"Why do you need it" is the wrong question. When you are talking about a constitutional right the burden is on those who wish to infringe to prove that the infringement they are seeking is necessary and also the least invasive way of achieving their goal.

The gun grabbers may be able to show that gun control reduces gun crimes but they cannot show that it has ever reduced overall violent crime, murder rates or overall mortality rates.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

And it isn't just for Constitutionally protected rights, it is for criminalizing anything. THe burdon of proof is always on those who want to illegalize/criminalize/ban/restrict something.
 
Sniper66 said:
It is always the intellectually lazy who opt for the easiest "solution", which is to simply "ban" something....guns, alcohol, sports cars, high capacity mags, the list could be endless. Fact is, human beings want all of these things. When my wife used to ask, "do you need another gun", I used to try to explain why I wanted it, but now I just say "Of course not, but I really want it." We want all these things and society has to figure out ways to live with and manage that reality.
Click to expand...
I think a certain given/saying is "there's unlimited desires and limited...".. something like that.
it's same ol' times
 
David Gregory wants to ban all magazines like the 30 round AR-15 magazine he waved during his interview with Wayne LaPeirre, as that banning will stop bad people from getting them. The magazine he was waving around the studio is currently banned in the city in which this interview was conducted. Obviously a ban did nothing to stop a mere reporter from getting one - how will it stop a real bad person?:neener:
 
Last time I checked it was called the "Bill of Rights" not the Bill of Needs.

I suppose your brother doesn't realize just how many 30 round magazines stood idle, doing no harm to anyone, on the day of the Sandy Hook shooting. :banghead:
 
The answer to this question is in The Federalist Papers.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is war against governments. Self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting are nice, but we're supposed to be organized into militias and training.

We're supposed to have more than semi-automatic rifles too. Cannon were held privately during and after the Revolutionary War. A pair of idiots were standing in for Sean Hannity today and they continually argued that citizens cannot have RPG's. Well, they're wrong. If the Constitution authorizes cannon, which makes sense in modern warfare, then we can have bazookas.

But, people refuse to form militias as is proper:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=870091&postcount=8
 
Last edited:
Are you aware of any instances where a high capacity magazine was used, and needed to repel attackers?

Perhaps such examples would work to show that it's not an impossible scenario.

I tried to explain him the real purpose of the 2nd amendment. He, as many do, tried to brush that off as a "that would never happen here" scenario.

By the way, I definitely appreciate the responses. He may be a lost cause, but I will continue to do what I can to educate those around me :)
 
I actually used the sports car analogy and the alcohol analogy. Considering he loves cars and enjoys alcohol socially, I was shocked when he said he was fine with banning those (after trying to claim it was irrelevant).
Click to expand...

So, he thinks that Prohibition was a raging success, then, does he?

After all, once they banned booze, no one broke the law in order to have a drink, right?
 
I don't, but they're convenient and not needing something has never been a good reason for banning it.
 
The 2nd Amend. is all about citizens having a viable way of determining thier own circumstances against any and all arenas of influince. Part of 'viable' is having arms commensurate with the times. If the average soldier, gang member were carying sticks and stones citizens should be able to cary likewise... I'm sure the introduction of the Colt Peacemaker caused a bigger splash than what a 30 round mag causes today. I think the argument for an AR mag should not stem from want or need but should start and end with the tenets of our constitution as set forth by our founding fathers.
 
Considering he loves cars and enjoys alcohol socially, I was shocked when he said he was fine with banning those (after trying to claim it was irrelevant).
Click to expand...

Only for the purposes of the conversation you were having. Believe me, if his right to own whatever car he wanted and drink his favorite spirit was ever actually threatened, he would sing a very different tune. It's easy to play the martyr role when you're not in any danger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
So why were the anti's pretty much dormant the last two decades?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
benEzra
benEzra
Potatohead
  • Locked
Whats wrong with extended background checks?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Schutzen
S
A
  • Locked
ebay listing - HOLY COW!
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
New_comer
N
M
  • Locked
Can you block a 17 rd magazine down to 15 rd?
Replies
11
Views
991
MASTEROFMALICE
M
T
  • Locked
Why I am in favor of a ban on high capacity gun magazines
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Replies
227
Views
14K
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
Back
Top